D&D General D&D Assumptions Ain't What They Used To Be

[Reynard]

I sincerely doubt it. To quote @Clint_L , when I was in high school, we were a bunch of straight 14-year-old white boys playing D&D (not from Nanaimo).

Nowadays? It’s lot more likely that the group will have a girl at the table, or a guy who’s out, or a friend with two dads, or a kid who was born in North Africa.

And then they’re less likely to make rape jokes, or derogatory comments about homosexuals.

It’s pretty easy to say that kids these days are just being performative about what they say. I think that being exposed to different people makes them less likely to reduce others to stereotypes in the first place.

14 year Olds are 14 year Olds. What is edgy and performative rebellion do change, however.

 

[Lanefan]

What if they decide to do something that you're not comfortable DMing?

It'd have to be really something, as I'm comfortable with quite a lot and see being so as part of the DM gig. Far more likely - as in almost certainly - a player would object first.

At my school games, there are just hard lines, because I like my job and want to keep it.

And that's a completely different situation and environment than what most of us are in.

But even at my home games, there are some directions I would just veto if they came up, though our group is pretty copacetic so it's never been an issue.

Speaking only as myself, offhand I can't think of anything I'd outright veto simply due to my own discomfort. The discomfort of others, however, might cause me to veto a few things.

 

[Lanefan]

I ended a Curse of Strahd campaign prematurely because of the player character's actions. They came across a ruined village and noticed a woman was spying on them from a hidden location. She was armed with a dagger, so they decided the best thing to do was to kill her. After the fight was over I thanked them for participating, but I didn't know where else to take the game after they murdered an innocent person without good reason.

Where that might be par for the course round here, depending on the party makeup at the time, and I'd just carry on as normal with consequences possibly falling where and how they may. Alignment can be a useful mechanic in situations like this.

 

[MGibster]

Where that might be par for the course round here, depending on the party makeup at the time, and I'd just carry on as normal with consequences possibly falling where and how they may. Alignment can be a useful mechanic in situations like this.

That was more the straw that broke the camel's back. I was just getting tired of running the game for that particular group. While they weren't horrible people, we had different gaming priorities.

 

[Lanefan]

That was more the straw that broke the camel's back. I was just getting tired of running the game for that particular group. While they weren't horrible people, we had different gaming priorities.

Thing is, good people can still (and IMO should very much be allowed to) roleplay their characters doing horrible things and-or being horrible people.

Conflating real people with their fictional characters is the same terrible, awful mindset that leads to Lena Headey taking real-world abuse just because she portrayed a nasty character in Game of Thrones.

 

[MGibster]

Conflating real people with their fictional characters is the same terrible, awful mindset that leads to Lena Headey taking real-world abuse just because she portrayed a nasty character in Game of Thrones.

I have no idea where this is coming from. I don't think I mixed anything up.

 

[Lanefan]

I have no idea where this is coming from. I don't think I mixed anything up.

You said your players weren't horrible people. At the same time, you also said/implied you didn't want to run the game any more because of the horrible things their characters were doing.

To me, that's conflating the players with their characters. A good person playing an evil-to-the-core character does not become a bad person just because of that.

I should note that I'm gong on the assumption that it's the DM's job to neutrally arbitrate whatever the players have their characters do, no matter how heroic or non-heroic those actions might be, and just keep on truckin'.

 

[MGibster]

You said your players weren't horrible people. At the same time, you also said/implied you didn't want to run the game any more because of the horrible things their characters were doing.

You read far more into it than I intended and I'll just leave it at that.

 

[Clint_L]

You said your players weren't horrible people. At the same time, you also said/implied you didn't want to run the game any more because of the horrible things their characters were doing.

To me, that's conflating the players with their characters. A good person playing an evil-to-the-core character does not become a bad person just because of that.

Not at all. I'm the same. I won't run a campaign where the players want to role-play as evil psychopaths. That's just not fun for me, and I'm the one doing all the work.

Fun evil (supervillain style) is fine, but I'm not going to narrate a D&D version of Hostel. I quite enjoy horror, and you've played Dread with me. That's fun. But I have run into players in the past who want to go kind of pointlessly homicidal with their characters, and it both makes me uncomfortable and bored. I don't think less of the players as people, though; I just think we have a bit different taste in this instance. I'm mean, it's not as if they wanted to play Monopoly or something.

I should note that I'm gong on the assumption that it's the DM's job to neutrally arbitrate whatever the players have their characters do, no matter how heroic or non-heroic those actions might be, and just keep on truckin'.

I think we probably all agree that it's a consensual game that has to be fun for everyone, including the DM. From everything I know, your games are fun for everyone involved, so it's not an issue, especially as you're a pretty chill guy. All I'm saying is I think it's just as valid for the DM to have clear boundaries as it is for players.

 

[CapnZapp]

I ended a Curse of Strahd campaign prematurely because of the player character's actions. They came across a ruined village and noticed a woman was spying on them from a hidden location. She was armed with a dagger, so they decided the best thing to do was to kill her. After the fight was over I thanked them for participating, but I didn't know where else to take the game after they murdered an innocent person without good reason.

Something like this needs to be handled through communication - what are your respective expectations on the campaign.

Also: while you knew she was innocent (presumably because the module text said so) the players (and their characters) did not.

Far too often the party gets into trouble (ambushes, accusations etc) if they don't take action and do so immediately. Also, D&D just isn't a very humanistic game, considering how player characters are reinforced as special people at every step: hailed as heroes and given powerful abilities given to nobody else. It's easy to treat the common populace as a kind of background only instead of the actual living people they are. It's hard(er) to value their lives as equal to yours when you are clearly superior in every way.

This is not intended as a defense of their actions, but an explanation. I mean, they could be murder-hobos in real life, but this presupposes it's something about the game that warps otherwise decent people.

In case you come across similar people in the future; how about exposing them to a short palate cleanser in the form of a game with OSR sensibilities. I especially recommend DCC (Dungeon Crawl Classics) with its funnel concept. If even one of the players experiences humility and a change of perspective, it should count as a success!